ODC 2021

The appellant father appealed a trial judge's decision finding his child in need of protection and placing the child in the extended care of the Society.

During the trial, the father brought a non-suit motion at the close of the Society's case.

The trial judge failed to put the father to his election on whether to call evidence, reserved her decision, and subsequently ruled on a final basis that the child was in need of protection before the father could present his case.

The Divisional Court held this was a fundamental procedural error that deprived the father of his right to be heard on the protection issue.

The appeal was allowed and a new trial ordered.

The plaintiffs brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Carpenter-Gunn J. dated June 25, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal.

Costs were awarded to the responding defendants in the fixed amount of $5,000.

The self-represented appellant moved to set aside the Divisional Court's decision dismissing his appeal from a Law Society of Ontario disbarment order, alleging a reasonable apprehension of bias against the presiding judge.

The appellant argued that the judge's prior refusal to allow a lengthy factum, the scheduling of the appeal, and the conduct during the hearing demonstrated bias.

The court dismissed the motion, finding that routine procedural directions, standard scheduling practices, and normal appellate questioning do not give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Dunphy J. dated May 13, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed in the amount of $5,000.

The appellant appealed a decision dismissing her claims as frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process under Rule 2.1.01.

The Divisional Court issued a notice considering dismissing the appeal on the same grounds, noting the claims were barred by issue estoppel and constituted improper follow-on litigation.

Finding that the appellant was litigating vexatiously and attempting to relitigate issues already decided by previous courts, the Divisional Court dismissed the appeal without costs.

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision by the Office of the Independent Police Review Director (OIPRD) to screen out her complaint against three police officers.

The applicant alleged the officers failed to lay additional charges against an individual and treated her with disrespect based on her gender and ethnicity.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding that the OIPRD's decision was reasonable and that the applicant was not denied procedural fairness during the screening process.

The court held that the OIPRD reasonably concluded the officers' exercise of discretion did not constitute misconduct and that there was no evidence of bias or differential treatment.

The moving party, Sota Dental Studio Inc., brought a motion for leave to seek judicial review of an adjudicator's decision.

The Divisional Court granted the motion for leave, with costs fixed at $5,000 payable in the discretion of the application panel.

The applicant sought leave to appeal an interlocutory decision of the Assessment Review Board that denied its request to withdraw its property tax appeals.

After the applicant appealed its 2017 and 2018 assessments, it sold the property for significantly more than the assessed value.

The respondents subsequently gave notice of their intention to seek a higher assessment.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, finding no reason to doubt the correctness of the Board's decision that the applicant could not withdraw its appeal as of right once notice of a higher assessment was provided.

The self-represented moving party sought to review an order of a single judge of the Divisional Court that declined to extend the time to seek leave to appeal.

The moving party claimed to have mailed a notice of motion shortly after the decision, but the court had no record of it.

Acknowledging the delays caused by the COVID-19 pandemic and the moving party's circumstances, the court permitted the motion to review to proceed before a panel of three judges, subject to strict terms regarding deadlines and the materials that could be filed.

The moving party, self-represented, sought a stay of proceedings and costs orders pending decisions on his multiple motions for leave to appeal.

The court dismissed the stay request without requiring responding materials, finding that the moving party had failed to comply with previous court directions and timelines, thereby disentitling himself to equitable relief.

The court set final deadlines for the moving party to serve and upload his motion materials for leave to appeal, failing which the motions would be dismissed as abandoned.

The tenants appealed a Landlord and Tenant Board decision terminating their tenancy for the landlord's own use.

The tenants argued the eviction was retaliatory because they had attempted to enforce their legal rights regarding illegal rent increases and maintenance issues.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding the Board member correctly applied the legal test under section 83(3)(c) of the Residential Tenancies Act and afforded the tenants procedural fairness.

The appellant insurer appealed a Licence Appeal Tribunal (LAT) decision ordering it to pay for disputed chiropractic treatment plans once incurred.

The insurer argued the LAT lacked jurisdiction to order payment for expenses not yet incurred prior to the hearing.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the LAT has broad remedial powers to determine entitlement to benefits, and requiring claimants to self-fund disputed treatments before accessing the LAT would defeat the consumer protection purpose of the Statutory Accident Benefits Schedule.

The tenants appealed an order of the Landlord and Tenant Board terminating their tenancy for persistent late payment of rent.

At the hearing, the Board member refused to allow the tenants to present bank records from a phone to prove they had paid rent, while relying on the landlord's uncorroborated testimony.

The Divisional Court allowed the appeal, finding that the Board breached procedural fairness by denying the tenants an opportunity to present their evidence.

The matter was remitted to the Board for a new hearing.

The defendants appealed a decision certifying an Ontario national class action and dismissing a motion to stay the action as an abuse of process due to a parallel, certified Quebec class action.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no error in principle in the motion judge's exercise of discretion.

The motion judge properly considered the history of the proceedings, including the defendants' failure to oppose the Quebec authorization after last-minute amendments, and reasonably concluded the Ontario action was not an abuse of process and was the preferable procedure.

The moving party brought a motion for leave to appeal an earlier order.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs of $5,000 to the responding party.

The moving parties brought a motion for leave to appeal the order of Pollak J. dated May 10, 2021.

The Divisional Court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal and awarded costs to the responding party fixed at $5,000.

The defendant brought a motion for leave to appeal an order dismissing its motion for summary judgment.

The Divisional Court noted that while the motion judge made final determinations regarding two defences, the formal order was interlocutory as it simply dismissed the summary judgment motion.

Finding that the moving party failed to meet the test for leave to appeal an interlocutory order, the court dismissed the motion.

The applicant, a Justice of the Peace, sought judicial review of decisions by the Justices of the Peace Review Council finding her guilty of judicial misconduct and recommending her removal from office.

The misconduct stemmed from an article she published criticizing the bail system and making personal attacks on Crown Attorneys.

The Divisional Court dismissed the application, finding the Review Council's decisions on misconduct, disposition, and costs compensation were reasonable and did not violate her Charter right to freedom of expression.

The plaintiff appealed the dismissal of a motion to certify a class proceeding arising from a city bus crash.

The Certification Judge had denied certification on the basis that a class proceeding was not the preferable procedure, noting the plaintiff's strategic choice to pursue complex systemic negligence claims while ignoring direct claims against the bus driver and the city as owner.

The Divisional Court dismissed the appeal, finding no palpable and overriding error or error of law in the Certification Judge's discretionary preferability analysis.

Leave to appeal the costs order of the certification motion was also denied.

The applicant employer sought judicial review of an arbitrator's decision ordering it to pay $185,000 in liquidated damages for failing to produce documents in a timely manner during a grievance process under a construction industry collective agreement.

The Divisional Court found the arbitrator's decision was reasonable and did not breach procedural fairness, as the collective agreement mandated strict timelines and specific penalties for non-compliance.

The application was dismissed, save for a mathematical calculation error regarding the exclusion of weekends and holidays, which was remitted to the arbitrator on consent.